The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1887-11-30
supreme Court Decisions.

they complied with the terms of the mortgage
But such delivery does not confer the pur-
chasers absolute title to the property. By
their purchase they only acquire conditional
title, and they did not perform the condition
imposed by law the absolute title previously
held By others was not Invested. Where in a suit
the bond of such bile in such case by
the mortgages the special findings show
an actual conversion or appropriation of the
property either by the constable or the purchas-
nor the value of the property there is moth
ing more than nominal damages shown.
1898. Michael A. McCann VS.. First Nations al
Bank of Jacksonville. Clark G. G. Affirmed.
MITCHELL J.-when the original capital of a ma
toDal bank had become impaired by reason OF
bad debts" and the stockholders were In the
situation of being compelled to elect either to
submit to assessment of their stock or go
into liquidation, reduce the capital or the
bank as to put the amount OF the capital In
correspondence with its value. and they chose
the latter alternative to make good the def
cheney. each stakeholder surrendering proper
tionate share of his stock the consideration of
such surrender was the immunity from the i'm
pending assessment, and having received the
whole consideration upon which such surrender
was made. stockholder cannot afterwards re-
cover any part of the proceeds realized by the
bank from the bad debts" which had occasioned
the reduction.
1878 Sylvanus Cobb ct al vs. Amasa P
Hess. Hamilton c. G. Reversed. Elliott. j.
A new promise made before the discharge in
bankruptcy will revive the original debt.
conditional promise that the promisor will pay
when he is financially able is valid and enforce
able when the contingency happened (2t
When creditors unite in composition agree
mept secret promise by the debtor to one
creditor to pay him more than the others is
void. The doctrine applies to such agreements
in bankruptcy proceedings.
1865. George Ford vs. State. Hamilton, G.
c. Reversed collars J.-It Is insisted
that the record does not show that
the Indictment was returned by the grand
jury into open court, or that the grand jury was
record at length and holds that these facts sufi-
GENTLY appear t2.l A description of the prop
erty in an indictments for arson, as "a mill
house, Is not insufficient. e. Declarations or
appellant which amounted to mere threats made
months before, and some of them more than
year before appellant had anything to dc with
the scheme of burning the mill, were not ad-
Missile TO prove him one of a conspiracy. And
not being connected with the burning of the
mill in time and character they are not properly
part OF the res eestae. H. Where witness Is
cross examined on matter collateral to the is
sue, his answer cannot be subsequently contra
dicted by the party putting the question 1t on
examination of q witness as to his interest
his hostility. he denies 1t, he may be contra
dicted by evidence of his statements.
1871. BENJAMIN Butler ct al. vs. State Parke
G. G. Reversed. Niblack, J.-When justice
of the peace reaches the conclusion that he is
not authorized to inhicr adequate punishment
and accept recognizance from the prisoner for
his appearance before the Probate Court pro-
vided in Section 1886. the affidavit filed with
MIN a complaint has performed its Office and
mas no longer any force as a pleading In the
cause. The prisoner having entered into such
recogniZance appears in the court named in the
recognizance to answer such charge by indict-
ment or affidavit and information as an original
proceeding and not for further trial on the COM
plant filed with the justice. The fact that the
recognizance entered into at the request of
the prisoner and by agreement OF the parties,
does not enlarge Its scope.
12467. Joseph w. Gregory admir-, va. c., c.,
c. & l. r. R. Co. Marion S C. Affirmed Mitch
ell, c. J.-It is only necessary TO charge. in
complaint which seeks redress for wilful injury
that tneiniurious act was purposely and inten-
tonally committed, with the intent willfully and
purposey inflict the injury complained of. If
the plaintiffs evidence, with all the legitimate
differences which jury may be reasonably
draw from it, is insufficient to sustain verdict
in his favor, that verdict for the plaintiff, IL
one should be returned, would be set aside, the
court may properly direct verdict for the de-
PENDANT without submitting the evidencesto the
jury.
1928. City of indianapolis VS.. Patsey Patter-
son. Marion S. c. Reversed. collars, j.
Appellee and husband made a plat, in 1860. OF
eleven acres OF ground as an addition to the
city of Indianapolis. She thought that the
manning seven acres of ground were included in
the plat, that being her desire and intention
In 1868 the husband executed and recorded
plat, without her knowledge consent, of the
seven acres. In 1871 the Council annexed the
plats TO the city, and taxes were assessed. They
were voluntarily paid by appellee, In the belief
that the ground was all plated in the plat of
1860 The Council ordered streets through the
plat of 1860. and small portion Of that of 1863
Demand by appellee for taxes paid the city, as
above stated Held, that appellee
estopped from disputng the validity of the plat Of
1865 the validity of the annexation of the
acres. Held, also, that the plat and annexation
were illegal. At the time Section 1885 went into
effect ION the 10Th of September. 1881 appellees
disability of coverture thereby removed
She had two years tberefrom in which to
cover taxes paid six years prior to 1881. and
failing to bring an action in that time. she Is
barred as to those amounts.
1907 John Fl. Bass ct al. VS.. Ernest Doer
man. Allen S. G. Affirmed. Howk J.-Q.)
When the transcript is brief and the Judgment
A~11v Az
of the pleadings, and it appears that the merits
of the cause had been discussed in the briefs of
counsel before the filing of the motion TO dis
miss. the appeal will rot be dismissed because
there are no marginal notes on the transcript
provided in Rule l9 e. Where complaint
shows that the business of the employers of the
plaintiffs, by the action of their creditors in
threatening suits, was entirely suspended. and
that the employers for the purpose of preferring
certain creditors conveyed to them oil the firm
and individual property 1t sufficiently shows
that the business of the employers
pended by the action of creditors within the
meaning of Section 5206, which provides in such
a case the employe shall be a preferred creditor
to an amount no: exceeding $50. When certain
creditors preferred by the debtors accept the
conveyance and transfer of such property they
take it subject to the debts so preferred by
statutest
1894 Thomas Ely ct al vs. Board of Com
rnissioners. Morgan G. C. Affirmed. Howk,
1.-THE validity of the proceedings of the Board
of Commissioners. however erroneous, II not
void, will Withstand collateral attack.
1915. Mary Suits ct al We VIM IT, brown
Huntington C. G. Affirmed. Elliott J.-When,
upon order OF court. land is sold bv an admins
traitor but the parties agreed that for some ir-
regularity the sale should be set aside, and be-
fore further proceedings the purchaser died, his
heirs entitled to the vendees lien. Where
the action by the heirs is sought TO be main
tanned on the theory that the title be put back
in them without second sale they are not en-
titled to enforce such lien in such action.
1862 John Barnett John j. Warrick ct
al Tippecanoe G. c. Dismissed
1926. George l. Williams ct al. vs. Eugene
r. Owens. Posey c. G. Dismissed
1862 Henry J. Trentman VS.. David c. Fish
er. Allen S. G. Dismissed.
1915. Amos B. Golf VS.. The State ex rel
Al ert F. Davis. Clinton G. c. Dismissed.
Superior Court.
Room Hon. N. b. Taylor judge.
John W. Dean IS ], W. Lanktree; suit on
bond. On trial By jury.
Room 2-Hon- IL. w. Howe Judge.
lhs=S Ii. arid ss,it